Which of the Following Situations Would Not Violate the Americans with Disabilities Act?

  • Blog
  • Which of the Following Situations Would Not Violate the Americans with Disabilities Act?
Contact Us
1
2
3
23 Apr, 2024
1 min
487
not violate the americans act

For the past three decades, the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act has helped people with mobility and sensory limitations by breaking down barriers that had prevented them from participating in society.

It is difficult not to see vast changes that the ADA has made to physical spaces - the law brought about wheelchair ramps for entrances to churches and schools, curb cuts on sidewalks, braille lettering on signage. This list goes on. But despite the advances made in the 30 years since the law was put on the books, people with disabilities still face obstacles in the digital space when they go online to conduct business, stay informed or get an education.

The team at Consumer Attorneys fights aggressively for people who are denied equal access to websites and smartphone apps because of a lack of accommodations for their physical limitations.

Our attorneys have filed more than 1,000 lawsuits to hold companies and institutions accountable for their digital accessibility issues. The firm has long been on the front lines of the effort to ensure that people with disabilities can be part of both the physical and digital worlds.

The Fight Is Not Over

Since President George H.W. Bush signed the ADA into law in 1990, at least 61 million Americans who have some type of a disability have been provided with accommodations such as sidewalk ramps and side-language interpreters in public meetings, according to the latest figures from the US Centers for Disease Control.

Since the ADA was put on the books, communities across the country have made considerable changes to ensure that all people have equal access to physical spaces like schools, health care facilities, supermarkets or airports.

The unprecedented growth and development of communications technology has opened up a new world for those who depend upon wheelchairs to move around or other devices for reading and hearing.

With the Internet and other tools at their disposal, disabled people have greatly expanded access to government services, marketplaces and lines of communications with their medical providers and loved ones. 

But despite this seemingly equalizing force, disabled people are still being left behind.

People hand-dexterity impairments may have difficulties navigating websites on touchscreens, for example. And many government and business sites carry videos without captioning, which excludes the hearing impaired from being able to consume the content.

A recent survey of 10 million websites found that some 98 percent of menus and 71 percent of online forms failed to meet accessibility standards, social activist Caroline Casey wrote in an opinion piece for NBC News commemorating the 30th anniversary of the ADA.

“The lack of accessible websites is particularly frustrating because there are many simple fixes that exist if website designers and owners felt motivated to implement them,” Casey writes.

Our Story: Furniture Fiasco

$ 100,500.00 win

When our client received a bill from Raymour and Flannagan, he assumed it was a mistake. But when the account showed up on his credit reports with Equifax and Experian, he discovered that he was a victim of identity theft. He disputed the charges, had them removed, and placed an identity fraud alert on his credit reports. Years later, he was denied favorable terms for a mortgage due to this same account being reported as delinquent. The credit bureaus failed to properly investigate and correct the error...until we got involved.

Furniture Fiasco

$ 100,500.00

When our client received a bill from Raymour and Flannagan, he assumed it was a mistake. But when the account showed up on his credit reports with Equifax and Experian, he discovered that he was a victim of identity theft. He disputed the charges, had them removed, and placed an identity fraud alert on his credit reports. Years later, he was denied favorable terms for a mortgage due to this same account being reported as delinquent. The credit bureaus failed to properly investigate and correct the error...until we got involved.

Our Story

Furniture Fiasco

$ 100,500.00 win

When our client received a bill from Raymour and Flannagan, he assumed it was a mistake. But when the account showed up on his credit reports with Equifax and Experian, he discovered that he was a victim of identity theft. He disputed the charges, had them removed, and placed an identity fraud alert on his credit reports. Years later, he was denied favorable terms for a mortgage due to this same account being reported as delinquent. The credit bureaus failed to properly investigate and correct the error...until we got involved.

Credit Trauma

When our client received a bill from Raymour and Flannagan, he assumed it was a mistake. But when the account showed up on his credit reports with Equifax and Experian, he discovered that he was a victim of identity theft. He disputed the charges, had them removed, and placed an identity fraud alert on his credit reports. Years later, he was denied favorable terms for a mortgage due to this same account being reported as delinquent. The credit bureaus failed to properly investigate and correct the error...until we got involved.

G.O.,

from Florida

How the Americans with Disability Act & Website Accessibility law works

Companies accused of Americans with Disabilities Act violations on their websites can’t get lawsuits dismissed just by claiming they have installed programs to fix those issues - especially when accessibility issues remain, a federal court ruled.

This ruling from a Northern District of Georgia court is a win for plaintiffs fighting against institutions accused of running websites with barriers to people with disabilities, as it shows that federal courts won’t let defendants off easy when they face ADA website lawsuits.

In March 2020, visually-impaired Georgia resident Todd Taylor filed a lawsuit under Title III of the ADA against clothier H. Stockton-Atlanta, Inc., a company that operates a website that allows customers to buy products online or find addresses and hours of operation for its brick-and-mortar stores.

Under Title III of the ADA, companies and institutions are required to make accommodations on their websites for people with sensory impairments - just as they would at their physical storefronts.  

Taylor says he tried to use the H. Stockton website with the help of screen-reading software but he found obstacles that prevented him from making purchases and finding information about the company’s physical stores, including broken hyperlinks, missing labels for certain webpage elements and a lack of alternative text for images.

Company owner Hamilton Stockon III claims that after the suit was filed he purchased an annual subscription to “accessiBe,” an online service that can modify websites to the World Wide Web Consortium’s international guidelines for making websites more accessible for people with disabilities. 

Stockton claims in court papers that he purchased the subscription about one month after the case began - and argued in a motion to dismiss filed just two weeks later that Taylor’s lawsuit should be dismissed because it had been rendered moot.

But US District Judge Thomas Thrash didn’t let Stockton off the hook.

A forensic data expert audited the company’s website on June 8, 2020 on Taylor’s behalf and found that several barriers remain for the visually impaired - so it would be “premature” for him to dismiss the case on a mootness argument, the judge said.

Thrash also said that even if Stockton voluntarily alleviated the ADA issues that Taylor alleges in his suit by purchasing accessiBe, it would be “improper” to toss the case at this early stage - and that there is no reasonable expectation that ADA violations would not happen in the future because Stockton must renew his annual subscription to the service.

Further, the judge continued, Stockton has offered no explanation for making changes to the site beyond a “bland pronouncement” that he wants to make sure “any willing customer” can buy his products during the novel coronavirus pandemic.

“There is little to indicate that the Defendant ‘was motivated by a genuine change of heart’ rather than a desire to avoid liability in this action,” Thrash wrote, citing standards established in a 2007 ruling by the Atlanta-based US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

People with disabilities have rights under federal law ensuring that they have equal access to online goods and services - and the team at Consumer Attorneys is here to help hold companies and institutions accountable in court if their digital spaces contain obstacles that violate the ADA.

How We Can Help

The ADA has helped usher in incredible changes to the physical world to equalize access for all people, regardless of their physical abilities or limitations. But the fight isn’t over.

Government agencies, businesses and other institutions that fail or neglect to ensure that people with disabilities effectively access their online products and services should be taken to task - and Consumer Attorneys are here to handle those fights in court.

The firm is a proven leader in fighting for the rights of disabled people granted under the ADA and can hold violators financially liable for failing to make proper accommodations.

If you feel that your rights have been violated due to challenges with accessing websites and apps, contact Consumer Attorneys for a consultation.

Daniel Cohen is the Founding Partner of Consumer Attorneys
About the author
Daniel Cohen
See more post

Daniel Cohen is the Founder of Consumer Attorneys. Daniel manages the firm’s branding, marketing, client intake and business development efforts. Since 2017, he is a member of the National Association of Consumer Advocates and the National Consumer Law Center. Mr. Cohen is a nationally-recognized practitioner of consumer protection law. He has a wealth of proven legal experience in the US in: collective claims, representing visually impaired people who believe their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act have been violated in both the physical and digital environments, corporate governance and dispute resolution. Read more

Contact Us
INVESTIGATIVE ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT

You, (“Client,” “you”), and Consumer Attorneys PLC (“CA” or “we”), located at 8095 N. 85th Way, Scottsdale, AZ 85258 (“CA”) , hereby enter into this limited scope retainer agreement whereby you agree to grant CA the exclusive authority to investigate your potential consumer law claim(s), including but not limited to potential violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), Electronic Funds Transfer Act “EFTA”), Fair Credit Billing Act (“FCPA”), and/or the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA”) (collectively referenced as “consumer protection statutes”). 1Please read carefully before signing:

Authorization

You authorize CA to investigate your potential consumer law claim(s) under state and federal consumer protection statutes. You authorize CA to contact third parties on your behalf for the limited purpose of investigating your potential consumer law claims. “Third parties” include but are not limited to consumer reporting agencies, creditors, lenders, debt collectors, rental agencies, employers, courts, and law enforcement agencies.

CA’s Exclusive Investigative Period

CA agrees to investigate your potential consumer law claims in good faith. By signing this agreement, you agree to give CA the exclusive right to investigate your potential consumer law claim(s) for the next 180 days (“Exclusive Investigative Period”). For the duration of the Exclusive Investigative Period, you agree that you will not communicate with any other law firm or legal representative about your potential consumer law claim(s). You agree to forgo any previously scheduled consultation or case review until CA’s Exclusive Investigative Period concludes.

Termination of Exclusive Investigation Period

CA agrees that the Exclusive Investigative Period may not extend beyond 180 days without your prior written consent.

At any time between the date of this agreement and the expiration of CA’s Exclusive Investigative Period, CA may inform you of the outcome of its investigation. If CA’s investigation reveals that you have an actional consumer law claim, CA may ask you to sign a formal retainer agreement. If CA’s investigation does not reveal an actionable consumer law claim, you will receive an e-mail that states CA will not represent you in any further pursuit of your potential claim(s).

The relationship between you and CA automatically terminates at 5pm on the 180th day of the Exclusive Investigative Period or your receipt of CA’s written notice to decline representation, whichever comes sooner. At the conclusion of the Exclusive Investigative Period or upon receipt of CA’s written declination of representation, you are permitted to seek alternative legal counsel without penalty.

Nothing in this agreement should be construed as a promise or guarantee that CA will represent you in a consumer lawsuit at any point in time. CA reserves the right to decline to represent you for any reason permitted by relevant laws and ethical rules.

Your Involvement and Promises to us

You agree to meaningfully participate and cooperate in CA’s investigation of your potential consumer law claim(s). You agree to immediately inform CA if your mailing address, e-mail address, or phone number changes at any point during the Exclusive Investigative Period.
You agree to provide all relevant information, communications, documents, materials, and all other similar instruments to CA and its representatives during the Exclusive Investigative Period. You understand that your failure to provide all relevant information, communications, documents, and materials to CA during the Exclusive Investigative Period may hinder, delay or otherwise frustrate CA’s investigation of your potential consumer law claim(s).

You agree, under penalty of perjury, to provide complete, accurate, and truthful information to CA. All documents and communications, oral or written, past or future, provided to CA during the Exclusive Investigative Period and anytime thereafter are presumed by CA to be true, complete, and accurate.

Fees and Costs Incurred During Exclusive Investigative Period

CA agrees that you will not incur any out-of-pocket fees or costs during CA’s Exclusive Investigative Period. However, if CA agrees to represent you in a consumer lawsuit, CA may recover the fees and costs incurred during the Exclusive Investigative Period from the Defendant pursuant to a future settlement or judgment.

You agree that CA has a right to place a lien on any future monetary recovery obtained by client related to the claims identified during CA’s Exclusive Investigative Period or as a result of CA’s investigative efforts. If you refuse to cooperate with CA in the formal pursuit of the consumer law claim(s) it identifies during or after the Exclusive Investigative Period, you agree that CA has the right to recover the fees and costs it incurred while investigating your potential consumer law claim(s).

Authorization to Use Your Electronic Signature

CA will send you any and all documents that require your signature. You authorize CA to affix your electronic signature to requests, disclosures, or other forms that CA deems reasonably necessary to the investigation of your potential consumer law claim(s) upon receipt of your approval or after the 7th day after the document was sent to you, whichever comes first. Your electronic signature will be used on any and all other subsequent documents that will need signature, affirmation, acknowledgment, or any other forms of authentication in reference to this matter under the above referenced procedure.

1You also agree to give CA the exclusive authority to investigate potential violations of state-specific consumer protection statutes.

All Rights Reserved. Without Prejudice. CONSUMER ATTORNEYS

FORM # INV2024CA119

Attorney Advertising, Prior Results Do Not Guarantee A Similar Outcome. This website is for informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

© 2024 Consumer Attorneys PLC. All Rights Reserved.